what a couple of posers

you're the one who just said you were gonna copy them i.e. pose

i meant recording it in real-time, not cheating the system like they do :P

i wonder what their ratio of amount of time spent on their music / length of their music is

Okay ****ing how?

They take a sound and draw it out electronically along with using loops.

How utterly pointless.

I might check out some of their music though.

When Sugarhill Gang's "Rapper's Delight" made waves on the radio statioms in NY all 14 minutes of it were played on air, however I feel like nowadays that pretty much happen on mainstream radio stations, I'd say 5 minutes is the max for your song to still get airplay. If you are stuck on wanting a longer song and feeling that cutting it down will damage your track just keep the original on your album and release a single edit to send to stations. I can't count how many Funk and Soul artists did this with their cuts bringing 8-12 minute long songs down to around 3 for their single editions.

Some of their stuff is decent. Music with a point is so pretentious anyway.

Yeah that's cheating in my book, but I do want to check out some of their work sometime because I'm intrigued now.

aka they use paulstretch and for some reason they get a wikipedia page for doing that

Never mind, I'm not listening to them again.

I didn't know it was a contest. I guess the real winner is John Cage for this one.

As Slow as Possible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Five years until the next chord change? Sounds like my kind of piece.

And I though 4'33 was ridiculous.

Well that's just one performance, he doesn't dictate how long the notes are played for so it could vary quite a bit. I've heard a few pretty good versions.

As if I needed more reason to think John Cage was a complete joke

To be fair there are like 20 minute performances of the piece.

This does not budge my opinion of John Cage

I like some of his stuff, but I can see why you don't certainly.

Do you guys know about this seriously ambitous piece? Started to coincide with the new millenium, part-composed by a former member of The Pogues, it has a series of non-repeating variations generated by a computer, I believe. How this live segment is tied into the overall work, I don't know.

'You can laugh if you like, I prefer laughter to tears'. But as silly as some of his pieces may seem to you, writing off Cage is like writing off electronic music as a whole because he has such a massive body of work after composing from age 20 till his death in his 70s, always pumping out new ideas. Just listen to this and tell me Cage is a joke:



Cage is the best and that's a fact.

That's a really cool track mate, thanks for the link as I'd never heard that before

So that's some new insight certainly, but it doesn't change the fact that so much of what some of his other music stands for is absolutely outrageous to me so that's really just two different philosophies at work there

That's interesting, since I kind of have the opposite view. There are a few of his pieces that I'm not fond of but because of the point that they make I can still appreciate them. One of my favourite things about Cage is that none of his music is pointless, each and every piece is the personification of some element within Cage's philosophy of music. There's a downside to that though, since his most controversial pieces (4'33", Water Walk, ASLSP) are his most well known while his best pieces like his quartets, piano sonatas, electronic music, and percussion pieces are largely ignored.

Which pieces are outrageous to you?

The same ones that a lot of this forum debates about like the one where he's like "hey i'm a famous musician here's a piece with literally no music" or the one where he's like "hey i'm so edgy here's a song that's 40 years long" or whatever the hell it was, I don't know man as a musician it almost feels insulting.

He's a composer though, so he doesn't really market himself as a musician. Kind of sounds like what I described because you just listed two of his most controversial pieces and are ignoring the rest of his discography which includes many more bangers like Credo In Us. I recommend his string quartets and percussion music (the cactus pieces might be insulting to you too though). If you're a fan of musique concrete, his is some of the best out there too.

Bull of Heaven probably got their wikipedia page for being a massively cool avant-garde group. You don't have to listen to their million year long songs, that's kind of a chore, but they have so much great stuff across many different genres.







This one might be the best though

It's not the 60s any more.

That's a very precise figure.

Julian Casablancas +The Voidz: Human Sadness, length 10:57

It's a pretty epic track, it was hard to get into at first listen, but once you get the feel of the sound, its pretty navigable and you can feel the vastness, the bumps and the richness of the space that they are creating.

Edit:
In fact, most of the track off that album pushes beyond 4 minutes

Longer than 5 minutes is not preferable.

I use to listen to long songs but as I got older I began to appreciate shorter songs more. I rather listen to songs that are less than six minutes than songs that are long than six minutes.

Too long?:

I can't stand radio edits most of the time, so it wouldn't be bad to hear them songs long on the radio!!! yeah!!!

Someone said some of my songs are awesome but too long. So I got to thinking, "What? That doesn't even make sense"

If you're devoting any amount of time to listening to music that you enjoy, where would track length even come in to play? I have terrible attention too but it doesn't matter if I'm really digging what I'meh listening to. If you turn off a song strictly because it was "too long" then I've reason to believe you're not really into it.
What are you doing, watching the time to see how much has passed?

Close to the Edge by Yes at 18+ minutes is pure rapture.

A simple 3 chord rock song at 18+ minutes would be torture.

4'33 at 18+ minutes would make me wanna kill a bunch of people. Unless I was trying to fall asleep at the time. In which case, it would be awesome.

So..... you're not into it, exactly like what I said? If you don't like it, you really shouldn't be listening to it. That cancels out the "too long" sentiment. "Its too long amd lm not digging it". Well then it doesn't matter how long it is because you don't like it and don't wanna Liste. No one's saying "This is amazing and I'm loving every second of it but its too long so I have to turn it off".

Like I said, if you've decided to put something on that you love and that holds your attention, what does length have to do with anything? What, are you watching the time to see how much has passed?

Dude that's my point. Some long songs can hold my attention. Some can't because they wear out their welcome after a while.

I have a tons of songs I love that are 15+ minutes long. Hell, Bridge Across Forever by Transatlantic has one song at about 27 minutes and another at 30 minutes and I love them both.

Some songs are meant to be around 3:00. Look at The Beatles catalog for cripes sake. Taxman is only 2:39 and it's perfect. If they'd decided to keep it going for another 5 minutes it would have killed the song for me.

Sometimes stuff sounds cool for a few minutes but not for thirty minutes

On mainstream radio, i.e. Radio 1 or 2 or the endless loops they play on commercial stations should be curtailed at perhaps under six minutes. Hotel California or BoRap length. Music for the casual listener.
On 'adult' stations such as BBC6 Music there is more freedom to play 10-minute plus classics as the listeners are usually more discernible to interesting music.

There's no "too long" for me, but I probably won't be listening to something exceptionally long very often, since I just wouldn't have the time for it.